Sued and lost...

[Claude Lawrenson]

Doug - agreed, and so can inspectors fall victim of computerized and/or any report that fail to meet the SOP.

Once again this happened before licensing.....I noted earlier it should be interesting to see what CAHPI-BC will do to discipline in this member based on the outcome of this case.

[David P. Valley]

Originally Posted by dcossar

Check box type reporting might have contributed to the result as well.

Cheers

The style of report that was utilized on this particular inspection (or any other inspection for that matter) has absolutely nothing to do with being sued for giving estimates on repairs. Estimates can be quoted by home inspectors (and litigated upon) on software style inspection reports also.

[Douglas Cossar]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

Doug - agreed, and so can inspectors fall victim of computerized and/or any report that fail to meet the SOP.

Once again this happened before licensing.....I noted earlier it should be interesting to see what CAHPI-BC will do to discipline in this member based on the outcome of this case.

True
Are you are aware of any reporting software that does not meet the SOP? If so let us all know which ones.

Cheers

[Douglas Cossar]

Originally Posted by dvalley

The style of report that was utilized on this particular inspection (or any other inspection for that matter) has absolutely nothing to do with being sued for giving estimates on repairs. Estimates can be quoted by home inspectors (and litigated upon) on software style inspection reports also.

Dave:

I was just making an observation.

Cheers

[pmacaulay]

What about this inspector being referred to his client by their real estate agent? Maybe he didn't want this agent to lose his commission.Unfortunately, you know it happens.

[mnicholet]

Originally Posted by pmacaulay

What about this inspector being referred to his client by their real estate agent? Maybe he didn't want this agent to lose his commission.Unfortunately, you know it happens.

Are you kidding me? Opportunity for conflict of interest? That would be corruption. No... that could never happen.

Shhh... someone with authority might see. Oh yeah, they have been ignoring it for years. Never mind

[Vern Mitchinson, CMI]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

Doug - agreed, and so can inspectors fall victim of computerized and/or any report that fail to meet the SOP.

Once again this happened before licensing.....I noted earlier it should be interesting to see what CAHPI-BC will do to discipline in this member based on the outcome of this case.

A narrative report beats the he!! out of tick and scratch any day especially when the author has command of the language and he should be before he can be certified. as well as getting a licence.

CAHPI discipline? Give me a break. If their training and testing was effective he would have been able to do a proper job. CAHPI should not have certified him. Either way CAHPI should be disciplining themselves.

CAHPI should be taking responsibility for this mess.
A $192,000.00 judgement is pretty severe discipline, don't you think?

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by vmitchinson

Conclusion. Licencing did not screen out this individual and if ever an example for the effectiveness of how useful licencing is this is it.

An understated fact, indeed.

Want to help the consumer, for real? Pass a law (with teeth) that requires full disclosure on the part of the seller. Let him pay the $192,000 for the issues he conceals from the buyer and his inspector. That would put an end to the entire mess.

[Dale Duffy]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Dale, you do a lot of commercial inspections. Do you offer estimates with your commercial property inspections?

No Nick, I do not.

[Vern Mitchinson, CMI]

Originally Posted by dvalley

The style of report that was utilized on this particular inspection (or any other inspection for that matter) has absolutely nothing to do with being sued for giving estimates on repairs. Estimates can be quoted by home inspectors (and litigated upon) on software style inspection reports also.

You should read the judgement yourself, then you would know that the inspection and report was judged inadequate. His estimate of 20,000 for repairs was deducted from the total cost. The main problem was He did not inspect the foundation on one whole side of the A frame structure and foundation, beams and joists. They were all rotten and had to be replaced. He should have recommended structural and geotect engineers to evaluate the foundation and structure. Even if he had not provided the estimate he would still have been ordered to pay for the repairs because he blew the inspection. He blew the report. He blew the presentation.
PS The news artical does not the the whole story.

[Claude Lawrenson]

Who else would be naive or foolish enough to assume the risk and liability of others?
Home inspectors, and more so for a measly inspection fee often become exposed to such a situation.

We are all too busy and to proud to admit our own shortcomings, when in fact James nailed it square on - full disclosure, by those that should have known about the condition. Now couple that with Vern's comments about the inspection and report was judged inadequate, on top of grossly underestimating the cost of repairs. Sounds like a quick 3 strikes against the inspector.

I see no mention of any "vendor disclosure". To me an important element in "reducing risk" or at least indicating whether it was or was not available. I do not put full faith in such a disclosure, but at least in such a case it could become the difference of reducing the inspectors risk, and possibly deflecting it back directly on the "vendors" statements/documentation of the condition.

We are thus faced with two choices to perform at near 100% performance rating on every inspection, or realize that eventually that one day the inspector may likely face the same type of scenario. Hopefully we all learn a bit more about how to avoid such a huge mistake.

[mnicholet]

Originally Posted by vmitchinson

A narrative report beats the he!! out of tick and scratch any day especially when the author has command of the language and he should be before he can be certified. as well as getting a licence.

CAHPI discipline? Give me a break. If their training and testing was effective he would have been able to do a proper job. CAHPI should not have certified him. Either way CAHPI should be disciplining themselves.

CAHPI should be taking responsibility for this mess.
A $192,000.00 judgement is pretty severe discipline, don't you think?

If you listened to the CBC radio interview on November 12th, Owen Dickie, President of CAHPI(BC) stated he would file a formal complaint within the association himself, if nobody else does.

I agree with Claude it will be interesting to see what type of discipline comes out of this up to and or including loss of licence.

CAHPI does ensure that the member was/is insured for over 1 million dollars. Therefore, the clients now have a blanket of protection with this court order.

CAHPI does not certify inspectors. CAHPI does have academic and field testing and mentoring requirements. Could have, should have, would have... we can always make it harder to become a home inspector.

No association takes on legal and or financial responsibility for their members mistakes/actions including InterNACHI.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by mnicholet

CAHPI does ensure that the member was/is insured for over 1 million dollars. Therefore, the clients now have a blanket of protection with this court order.

Another fallacy.

Insurance companies do not "protect" consumers....they protect the insured. You see, insurance companies make their profit by collecting premiums from the insured in amounts higher than they pay out to clients.

Unlike the judge in this case, the insurance company is biased toward the inspector. They will interpret the contract, interpret the report, and evaluate the entire inspection from the point of view of finding a reason to deny the claim.

Then....they will review the actions of the inspector. If he did not comply with his SOP, for example....they may be released from covering the claim for that reason as well, leaving him hanging in the breeze.

In any event....E&O does not protect clients. That is the lie perpetuated by the special interests who write it into licensing laws to make it expensive to get a license and try to keep inspectors (aka competition) down to a minimum.

[measter]

The reason he had a lawsuit to begin with was that he berated the client for being late.

Pride is the first of the deadly sins because it leads to every other misery.

[Claude Lawrenson]

So if insurance protects the inspector (minus their deductible and possible legal fees) and the insurance company is on the hook for the "error/omission" of the inspector, would it not be fair to say that the consumer (client) has some protection offered by the inspectors insurance?

Now take that scenario through an uninsured inspector, how long do you think it will take for that $200,000 judgement against the uninsured inspector to expediently pay that amount, or quickly close up their business?

Which consumer has less risk?

Do you really think this inspector will be eligible for insurance renewal, or likely dropped?